![What is 'progressive Islam'? [Part 2]](/assets/images/logo/placeholder.jpg){kind=logo}
What is 'progressive Islam'? [Part 2]
Farish A NoorPublished: Sep 30, 2004 12:29 PM | Updated: Jan 29, 2008 6:21 PM
Last August, I was invited to Indonesia by my friends the Pusat Kajian Islam dan Pluralisme (Islamic Research and Pluralism Centre) in Jakarta to speak on the topic of progressive Islam and the future of the Islamisation movement in the Malay archipelago.
After making several speeches on the same topic, the same question arose repeatedly: What is 'progressive Islam' and what is likely to happen to the progressive Islamisation movement in this region?
This article is a compilation of the speeches I delivered. I hope it will answer several questions and doubts which have arisen.
At this time, leaders, members and followers of the worldwide Islamisation movement are most fearful and worried about the terms 'radical' and 'radicalism'. Almost all Muslim leaders raced to obtain the 'moderate Muslim' label, which is described as cultured, peace-loving and passive (read: Someone western powers are comfortable with and compliant with the wishes and agenda of Washington DC).
Last August, I was invited to Indonesia by my friends the Pusat Kajian Islam dan Pluralisme (Islamic Research and Pluralism Centre) in Jakarta to speak on the topic of progressive Islam and the future of the Islamisation movement in the Malay archipelago.
After making several speeches on the same topic, the same question arose repeatedly: What is 'progressive Islam' and what is likely to happen to the progressive Islamisation movement in this region?
This article is a compilation of the speeches I delivered. I hope it will answer several questions and doubts which have arisen.
At this time, leaders, members and followers of the worldwide Islamisation movement are most fearful and worried about the terms 'radical' and 'radicalism'. Almost all Muslim leaders raced to obtain the 'moderate Muslim' label, which is described as cultured, peace-loving and passive (read: Someone western powers are comfortable with and compliant with the wishes and agenda of Washington DC).
What more after the term 'radicalism' has been linked to most negative connotations, and been lumped together with 'militant', 'terror' and 'extremism'.
We have become so careful and concerned about the term radical that we do not want to be associated or connected with it in whatever way. We are so afraid of being considered as 'black sheep' due to being labeled as 'Islamic radicals' that Islamic movements all over the globe have become tame and like lambs instead.
This is the comical aspect of present day Islamic movements, which claim that they are 'not afraid to die' but in reality are scared of hunger (Because the West is not comfortable with radical Islamic groups, and such groups will not receive aid money or patronage from them.)
My proposition is that the association or link between the concept of radicalism and negative phenomena like 'militants', 'terror' and 'extremism' is erroneous, be it from the historical aspect or from the logical aspect.
From the aetiology viewpoint (that is, the origins of a term or concept), both concepts have no connections whatsoever with each other.
What is surprising is how the paradigm shift and change in discourse, which resulted radicalism being linked to 'militant' could have taken place. As I have already stated in part one (What is 'progressive Islam'?) of this series, such changes are due to institutional factors and the relationship between a certain power and the power structure, and are not the handiwork of some genie or vampire some conservatives among us are so afraid of.
The agencies involved with these changes in discourse and paradigm include the mainstream media, governments of developed countries, their cronies in developing nations, and (sad but true) the mistakes of some Islamic movements themselves.
The change in discourse did not occur without reasons. There are certainly reasons why the term and concept of radicalism has been 'blacksheeped' and labeled as a new negative value.
To understand that process and its underlying causes, we must start with a glimpse of history,
a return to an era when radicalism was not viewed as dangerous, but was instead seen as a positive and honoured value.
Positive radicalism
I am drawn to an Islamisation which is radical in form and spirit. I even defend the radical Islamisation movement because I am confident that the movement has the ability and capacity to face the pitfalls of globilisation and its related negative aspects.
In the context of present day international politics, it is most evident that only the radical Islamisation movement is capable of handling the complicated and complex economic and political problems which result from the uncontrolled and uncontrollable globilisation process.
We must return to the original meaning of radicalism. From the end of the 19th century till the middle of the 20th century, nationalist and anti-colonial movements in the third world were led and controlled by extraordinary radical leaders with noble characters.
Asian leaders like Jose Rizal of the Philippines, Pridi Banomyong of Thailand (who founded the Thamassat University), Nguyen Cho Thacht (Ho Chi Minh) of Vietnam, Bung Karno and Muhammad Hatta, Haji Agoes Salim of Indonesia and Syed Sheikh al-Hady and Dr Burhanuddin al-Hemly of Malaysia could all have been labeled as radicals at that time.
Why 'radical'? Because they strived to free their countries and societies from the burdens of living under unfair colonial regimes. Their political visions and goals were built on the idea of genuine freedom based on the concept of unbiased universal justice. They did not compromise in their struggle and fought against the status quo totally.
This total opposition was what resulted in them being viewed as radicals at that time. But it is important to remember that at that time, total opposition against colonialism was supported by the common people.
The leaders were aware that change and proper independence could not be achieved as long as the old power structure and relationship remained. As such, they focused their opposition on the political system and colonial political institutions of that time.
The same example can be seen in a different case. In India, Mahatma Gandhi was also labeled as a dangerous radical. The leaders of African nationalism like Patrice Lumumba in the Congo faced the same pressure.
I think the most well-known 'radical' of the 20th century must be none other than Nelson Mandela of South Africa, who outright refused any dialogue or compromise with the apartheid regime of that nation, and was jailed for 25 years as a result.
Were Nelson Mandela, Mahatma Gandhi and Patrice Lumumb dangerous radicals? Yes, they were most certainly dangerous, but only so to the cruel, despotic and corrupt military and racist regimes!
Should we reject such radicalism? To those who seek to further the cause of the struggle for justice, the answer must surely be no.
Most strangely, at this time, the sole remaining superpower in the world, America, has also used the radical label to sideline and smear its enemies and challengers. But we must remember that America itself was founded by leaders who were considered to be radicals at that time.
George Washington, who betrayed the English government in the 18th century, was called a radical by King George of England at that time.
It can safely be said that America could not have been founded without its radical pro-independence movement. So why are the American leaders of today so afraid of the streams of ideas and politics which appear to be radical?
Are they haunted by the images in their dreams? Or have they realised that America is no longer a colonised nation, but is instead itself a colonial power, or was at least viewed as one?
Radicalism and religiousness
The question of radicalism becomes more complicated when linked to another social phenomenon which is a complex variable factor - religion.
It is very clear that among ideologues and leaders of developed nations, there already exists a fear of the phenomenon of religious politics. During the 1960's and 70s, there existed the liberation theology phenomenon in Latin America and Central America.
Among the Catholic leaders and thinkers in the two areas, a religious discourse was started which promoted awareness about social justice and communal issues. The leaders of the liberation theology movement started using Christian ideas and values to oppose the despotism and injustice of the military regimes, which were supported by their patrons - that is, the American government and business-military bloc.
Even though the liberation theology movement failed to achieve perfect freedom, the advantages and capability of the movement were clearly evident.
The political elite, business and military bloc were troubled when they saw the street demonstrations, strikes and other opposition phenomena which were so exciting and popular. From that time on, the religious political movement was not welcomed anymore.
A discourse with whatever religion has the potential to oppose and dismantle an existing social and political order. That is because every religion revealed to and bestowed upon mankind contains the same instructions or messages: Oppose despotism and buttress universal justice for all of mankind, who were all equal and same before God.
As such, it is most difficult for us to imagine a religious discourse which is passive and tame.
Buddhism, for example, has its radical message: Buddhism can be interpreted as a new discourse which criticises and rejects the hegemony of the Brahmin caste, which was so dominant in the social structure and power hierarchy of the Hindu community at that time (when it was founded).
Because of that, in Buddhist writings, we often read accounts which criticise the Brahmins.[1] To the high caste Brahmins, Buddhism can be considered as a system of ideas and values which is dangerous and radical - but Buddhist radicalism was born out of awareness of social justice issues.
In the case of Abrahamic tradition religions, there also emerged elements of similar radicalism. Christianity contains criticism of the hegemony of the Jewish Rabbis.
Jesus Christ criticised the abuse of power and misinterpretation of texts by the Jewish religious elite, so much so that he was himself accused of 'insulting the religion of the Jews'.and preaching false teachings.
But the elements of radicalism that can be found in the teachings of Jesus Christ existed because of his agenda, which aims to transform and bring about a total reformation - be it from the aspect of textual interpretation or social order.
When Prophet Mohammad received his divine revelations, he too was accused of being a radical who incited troubles and conflicts in his community. Prophet Mohammad was accused of spreading false teachings, telling lies, inciting conflicts between families and such.
The Prophet was opposed because the teachings of Islam actually opposed totally the widespread injustice and depostism that existed among the Quraish people at that time.
Islam had such radical attributes from the start because it was not happy with injustice, and those who were happy with the old corrupt order were in turn unhappy with the birth of Islam.
Because the two value and social order systems could not be combined and accommodated, there arose a conflict which stemmed from a fight for power.
The radicalism which is found in Islamic teachings - and the teachings of other religions - stemmed from its social vision, that is a vision of a new order which opposed the wrongdoings and sinful ways of the existing order, and wanted to bring about a new social order, fairer to all.
Can we, in our time, reject such an agenda of renewal which is radical yet positive and progressive?
I reject entirely the analogy drawn between 'Islamic radicalism' and militant, violent, hard-line and conservative acts. Actually, hard-line Islamic movements, which are conservative, old-fashioned and obsolete, are closer to the western conservatives who are known as neo-conservatives (Neo-cons).
This can be seen clearly when we compare their positions on several issues like basic human rights, democracy, women's rights, social justice, gender justice and others.
The question is this: If we want to return to a definition or interpretation of progressive Islam which is developed, dynamic and radical in a positive and constructive manner, how can that be done?
Main obstacles
To me, the main obstacles faced by progressive Islamists at this time are:
As such, the parameters and basic ideas of the Islamisation struggle must be dismantled, so that a new Islamisation discourse, which can face existing present day realities (and not esoteric problems like a genie beneath the bed!) can be born.
Can the progressive Islamisation movement free itself from the domination of olden time epistemology, logic and praxis? What is the shape and form of the new progressive discourse? These are questions which will be discussed in the next part which follows.
Notes
1) As an example, in the ancient story of Jataka Wetsandon (or Jataka Wesantara), there is an evil and despotic Brahmin character who kidnapped the children of Prince Wetsandon (Wesantara) to make them his slaves. In the end, the Brahmin suffocated to death from overeating!
Negative Brahmin characters (who were sometimes comical as well) were very often featured in the ancient Jataka tales (stories about the lives of different individuals). Their souls undergo spiritual transmigrations until they become like the Gautama Buddha character, and reflect the anti-Brahmin characteristics, which can be found in Buddhism.
Usually, the Brahmins are portrayed as greedy, earthy and hypocritical, the criticism and sarcasm being directed at the upper caste Brahmins as a whole.
After making several speeches on the same topic, the same question arose repeatedly: What is 'progressive Islam' and what is likely to happen to the progressive Islamisation movement in this region?
This article is a compilation of the speeches I delivered. I hope it will answer several questions and doubts which have arisen.
At this time, leaders, members and followers of the worldwide Islamisation movement are most fearful and worried about the terms 'radical' and 'radicalism'. Almost all Muslim leaders raced to obtain the 'moderate Muslim' label, which is described as cultured, peace-loving and passive (read: Someone western powers are comfortable with and compliant with the wishes and agenda of Washington DC).
What more after the term 'radicalism' has been linked to most negative connotations, and been lumped together with 'militant', 'terror' and 'extremism'.
We have become so careful and concerned about the term radical that we do not want to be associated or connected with it in whatever way. We are so afraid of being considered as 'black sheep' due to being labeled as 'Islamic radicals' that Islamic movements all over the globe have become tame and like lambs instead.
This is the comical aspect of present day Islamic movements, which claim that they are 'not afraid to die' but in reality are scared of hunger (Because the West is not comfortable with radical Islamic groups, and such groups will not receive aid money or patronage from them.)
My proposition is that the association or link between the concept of radicalism and negative phenomena like 'militants', 'terror' and 'extremism' is erroneous, be it from the historical aspect or from the logical aspect.
From the aetiology viewpoint (that is, the origins of a term or concept), both concepts have no connections whatsoever with each other.
What is surprising is how the paradigm shift and change in discourse, which resulted radicalism being linked to 'militant' could have taken place. As I have already stated in part one (What is 'progressive Islam'?) of this series, such changes are due to institutional factors and the relationship between a certain power and the power structure, and are not the handiwork of some genie or vampire some conservatives among us are so afraid of.
The agencies involved with these changes in discourse and paradigm include the mainstream media, governments of developed countries, their cronies in developing nations, and (sad but true) the mistakes of some Islamic movements themselves.
The change in discourse did not occur without reasons. There are certainly reasons why the term and concept of radicalism has been 'blacksheeped' and labeled as a new negative value.
To understand that process and its underlying causes, we must start with a glimpse of history,
a return to an era when radicalism was not viewed as dangerous, but was instead seen as a positive and honoured value.
Positive radicalism
I am drawn to an Islamisation which is radical in form and spirit. I even defend the radical Islamisation movement because I am confident that the movement has the ability and capacity to face the pitfalls of globilisation and its related negative aspects.
In the context of present day international politics, it is most evident that only the radical Islamisation movement is capable of handling the complicated and complex economic and political problems which result from the uncontrolled and uncontrollable globilisation process.
We must return to the original meaning of radicalism. From the end of the 19th century till the middle of the 20th century, nationalist and anti-colonial movements in the third world were led and controlled by extraordinary radical leaders with noble characters.
Asian leaders like Jose Rizal of the Philippines, Pridi Banomyong of Thailand (who founded the Thamassat University), Nguyen Cho Thacht (Ho Chi Minh) of Vietnam, Bung Karno and Muhammad Hatta, Haji Agoes Salim of Indonesia and Syed Sheikh al-Hady and Dr Burhanuddin al-Hemly of Malaysia could all have been labeled as radicals at that time.
Why 'radical'? Because they strived to free their countries and societies from the burdens of living under unfair colonial regimes. Their political visions and goals were built on the idea of genuine freedom based on the concept of unbiased universal justice. They did not compromise in their struggle and fought against the status quo totally.
This total opposition was what resulted in them being viewed as radicals at that time. But it is important to remember that at that time, total opposition against colonialism was supported by the common people.
The leaders were aware that change and proper independence could not be achieved as long as the old power structure and relationship remained. As such, they focused their opposition on the political system and colonial political institutions of that time.
The same example can be seen in a different case. In India, Mahatma Gandhi was also labeled as a dangerous radical. The leaders of African nationalism like Patrice Lumumba in the Congo faced the same pressure.
I think the most well-known 'radical' of the 20th century must be none other than Nelson Mandela of South Africa, who outright refused any dialogue or compromise with the apartheid regime of that nation, and was jailed for 25 years as a result.
Were Nelson Mandela, Mahatma Gandhi and Patrice Lumumb dangerous radicals? Yes, they were most certainly dangerous, but only so to the cruel, despotic and corrupt military and racist regimes!
Should we reject such radicalism? To those who seek to further the cause of the struggle for justice, the answer must surely be no.
Most strangely, at this time, the sole remaining superpower in the world, America, has also used the radical label to sideline and smear its enemies and challengers. But we must remember that America itself was founded by leaders who were considered to be radicals at that time.
George Washington, who betrayed the English government in the 18th century, was called a radical by King George of England at that time.
It can safely be said that America could not have been founded without its radical pro-independence movement. So why are the American leaders of today so afraid of the streams of ideas and politics which appear to be radical?
Are they haunted by the images in their dreams? Or have they realised that America is no longer a colonised nation, but is instead itself a colonial power, or was at least viewed as one?
Radicalism and religiousness
The question of radicalism becomes more complicated when linked to another social phenomenon which is a complex variable factor - religion.
It is very clear that among ideologues and leaders of developed nations, there already exists a fear of the phenomenon of religious politics. During the 1960's and 70s, there existed the liberation theology phenomenon in Latin America and Central America.
Among the Catholic leaders and thinkers in the two areas, a religious discourse was started which promoted awareness about social justice and communal issues. The leaders of the liberation theology movement started using Christian ideas and values to oppose the despotism and injustice of the military regimes, which were supported by their patrons - that is, the American government and business-military bloc.
Even though the liberation theology movement failed to achieve perfect freedom, the advantages and capability of the movement were clearly evident.
The political elite, business and military bloc were troubled when they saw the street demonstrations, strikes and other opposition phenomena which were so exciting and popular. From that time on, the religious political movement was not welcomed anymore.
A discourse with whatever religion has the potential to oppose and dismantle an existing social and political order. That is because every religion revealed to and bestowed upon mankind contains the same instructions or messages: Oppose despotism and buttress universal justice for all of mankind, who were all equal and same before God.
As such, it is most difficult for us to imagine a religious discourse which is passive and tame.
Buddhism, for example, has its radical message: Buddhism can be interpreted as a new discourse which criticises and rejects the hegemony of the Brahmin caste, which was so dominant in the social structure and power hierarchy of the Hindu community at that time (when it was founded).
Because of that, in Buddhist writings, we often read accounts which criticise the Brahmins.[1] To the high caste Brahmins, Buddhism can be considered as a system of ideas and values which is dangerous and radical - but Buddhist radicalism was born out of awareness of social justice issues.
In the case of Abrahamic tradition religions, there also emerged elements of similar radicalism. Christianity contains criticism of the hegemony of the Jewish Rabbis.
Jesus Christ criticised the abuse of power and misinterpretation of texts by the Jewish religious elite, so much so that he was himself accused of 'insulting the religion of the Jews'.and preaching false teachings.
But the elements of radicalism that can be found in the teachings of Jesus Christ existed because of his agenda, which aims to transform and bring about a total reformation - be it from the aspect of textual interpretation or social order.
When Prophet Mohammad received his divine revelations, he too was accused of being a radical who incited troubles and conflicts in his community. Prophet Mohammad was accused of spreading false teachings, telling lies, inciting conflicts between families and such.
The Prophet was opposed because the teachings of Islam actually opposed totally the widespread injustice and depostism that existed among the Quraish people at that time.
Islam had such radical attributes from the start because it was not happy with injustice, and those who were happy with the old corrupt order were in turn unhappy with the birth of Islam.
Because the two value and social order systems could not be combined and accommodated, there arose a conflict which stemmed from a fight for power.
The radicalism which is found in Islamic teachings - and the teachings of other religions - stemmed from its social vision, that is a vision of a new order which opposed the wrongdoings and sinful ways of the existing order, and wanted to bring about a new social order, fairer to all.
Can we, in our time, reject such an agenda of renewal which is radical yet positive and progressive?
I reject entirely the analogy drawn between 'Islamic radicalism' and militant, violent, hard-line and conservative acts. Actually, hard-line Islamic movements, which are conservative, old-fashioned and obsolete, are closer to the western conservatives who are known as neo-conservatives (Neo-cons).
This can be seen clearly when we compare their positions on several issues like basic human rights, democracy, women's rights, social justice, gender justice and others.
The question is this: If we want to return to a definition or interpretation of progressive Islam which is developed, dynamic and radical in a positive and constructive manner, how can that be done?
Main obstacles
To me, the main obstacles faced by progressive Islamists at this time are:
- Forced to defend a progressive agenda which is often labeled as radical;
- Forced to think up and carry out activities within a narrow space for discourse and ideas, in which the parameters of the struggle are still governed by an old orthodoxy;
- Forced to set up a social renewal discourse using logic, discourse, terminology and ideas from a bygone era.
As such, the parameters and basic ideas of the Islamisation struggle must be dismantled, so that a new Islamisation discourse, which can face existing present day realities (and not esoteric problems like a genie beneath the bed!) can be born.
Can the progressive Islamisation movement free itself from the domination of olden time epistemology, logic and praxis? What is the shape and form of the new progressive discourse? These are questions which will be discussed in the next part which follows.
Notes
1) As an example, in the ancient story of Jataka Wetsandon (or Jataka Wesantara), there is an evil and despotic Brahmin character who kidnapped the children of Prince Wetsandon (Wesantara) to make them his slaves. In the end, the Brahmin suffocated to death from overeating!
Negative Brahmin characters (who were sometimes comical as well) were very often featured in the ancient Jataka tales (stories about the lives of different individuals). Their souls undergo spiritual transmigrations until they become like the Gautama Buddha character, and reflect the anti-Brahmin characteristics, which can be found in Buddhism.
Usually, the Brahmins are portrayed as greedy, earthy and hypocritical, the criticism and sarcasm being directed at the upper caste Brahmins as a whole.
View Comments0